TOS Violations and Moderator Responses

[luckytxn 2,264]

How about also if the same people that keep making reports get a ban from that forum. If they are too sensitive then they should stay out. That way they can be productive elsewhere and be able to interact in the upper forums to get help with that stage of their journey or help others going through it.

If I remember right most of all reports come from the CEHST forum and OT. Let no newer member join it unless they ask and if they do let them see a warning about that section. If they agree then they have been warned that the section is a bit rougher and may offend their sensibilities. If they start complaining then boot them.

The problem with the 3 strikes is that at first the offense may be big and they get a small suspension. Subsequent offenses then graduate till they are banned. The next steps may have been for minor stuff but al of a sudden they are banned for what seems like nothing really and that causes bad vibes all around and anger from members. need to stop the gradual progression till they are banned. If minor at anytime they need a minor penalty. If too many of them then suspend them until they can give a good reason for reinstatement. Now from what I understand the mods have no choice in the matter when they do any actions as it is set up by admin and there is no choice. On the flip side a few mods seem very biased to certain members and can initiate the action that gets a member banned just because they don't like that member. This is unfair all around. This has appeared to happen recently and has made me want to leave.

So from what I have seen it is the admin allowing the problems with their Moderation center set up. Also if anything is seen as unfair we have a head mod that always backs her little mods no matter how ridiculous the actions. This allows the bad mods to do whatever to any member they choose as they know they can get away with it. This has allowed many good members that could be a huge asset to go away. Just because they are unable to function in certain sections does not mean they can't be an asset elsewhere.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

The new problem I see developing is that some members have decided that there is some sort of polarization, and are making posts about the "other" crowd and deciding, with no evidence, that this group is ruining their "fun." They are calling these members "sensitive," or the "PC crowd" or some other names.

One person actually posted that the forum is too full of women who are "b*tches" and who ate urine for breakfast and they are the root of the problem, and that got a lot of plusses. No one sees a problem with that?

Someone else said that unbanning Penny was a grand conspiracy to get some "type" of poster to come back while "punishing" other types of posters, without understanding that one violates TOS, one does not.

These same people say "if you don't like someone, put them on ignore!" but they cannot take their own advice if someone they don't like posted. Instead they say that women ate urine.

This was one of the more disgusting things I've seen on VJ for a while.

Notable: we have few to no posts/topics for many months having to do with how wimminz are the worst (unless they are hot and available), and then all of a sudden... Part of me thinks it's the Elliott Rodger thing, but not completely, I'd hazard.

Since the post has been removed, I'll give my take on it. I don't think the point of it was about eating urine. It was an expression meaning that if someone peed in your cereal, you'd start the day off on the wrong foot and be in a bad mood. He was primarily referring to an unnamed poster who seldom has a pleasant thing to post and brings negativity into whatever threads said person decides to participate in. I'll leave it at that simple analogy. For the record, I was one of the ones who +1 the post. I could explain why, but what's the use? The one(s) who are constantly offended and complain about judging would be the first to judge me. In other words, as long as it suites ones needs and point of view, it's ok to judge, make snarky comments and be offended. And this approach makes much more sense than to just not participate in threads which don't interest someone, doesn't it. The way it is being done creates more controversy and animosity, but that was the intent all along. The latter method keeps everyone happy, so no sense in doing that.

This post is not directed toward either of you. I just wanted to attempt an explanation.

[luckytxn 2,264]

This is what I was talking about some need to be banned form the section. It is an old expression to say, "who pissed in your cereal?" It means why are you upset over nothing or you seem overly angry. Of course we have some who get offended over everything unless the poster agrees with them and their views. These members need to be banned because they are too overly sensitive to participate in any meaningful way.

Since the post has been removed, I'll give my take on it. I don't think the point of it was about eating urine. It was an expression meaning that if someone peed in your cereal, you'd start the day off on the wrong foot and be in a bad mood. He was primarily referring to an unnamed poster who seldom has a pleasant thing to post and brings negativity into whatever threads said person decides to participate in. I'll leave it at that simple analogy. For the record, I was one of the ones who +1 the post. I could explain why, but what's the use? The one(s) who are constantly offended and complain about judging would be the first to judge me. In other words, as long as it suites ones needs and point of view, it's ok to judge, make snarky comments and be offended. And this approach makes much more sense than to just not participate in threads which don't interest someone, doesn't it. The way it is being done creates more controversy and animosity, but that was the intent all along. The latter method keeps everyone happy, so no sense in doing that.

This post is not directed toward either of you. I just wanted to attempt an explanation.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

This is what I was talking about some need to be banned form the section. It is an old expression to say, "who pissed in your cereal?" It means why are you upset over nothing or you seem overly angry. Of course we have some who get offended over everything unless the poster agrees with them and their views. These members need to be banned because they are too overly sensitive to participate in any meaningful way.

Exactly, it's an old expression and you did a better job defining it than I did.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This is what I was talking about some need to be banned form the section. It is an old expression to say, "who pissed in your cereal?" It means why are you upset over nothing or you seem overly angry. Of course we have some who get offended over everything unless the poster agrees with them and their views. These members need to be banned because they are too overly sensitive to participate in any meaningful way.

Who pissed in your cornflakes has been around for ever.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Who pissed in your cornflakes has been around for ever.

That is a slur against Cheerios. Reported.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That is a slur against Cheerios. Reported.

Cheerios is a slur against a popular British saying Reported

[GandD 5,966]

Since the post has been removed, I'll give my take on it. I don't think the point of it was about eating urine. It was an expression meaning that if someone peed in your cereal, you'd start the day off on the wrong foot and be in a bad mood. He was primarily referring to an unnamed poster who seldom has a pleasant thing to post and brings negativity into whatever threads said person decides to participate in. I'll leave it at that simple analogy. For the record, I was one of the ones who +1 the post. I could explain why, but what's the use? The one(s) who are constantly offended and complain about judging would be the first to judge me. In other words, as long as it suites ones needs and point of view, it's ok to judge, make snarky comments and be offended. And this approach makes much more sense than to just not participate in threads which don't interest someone, doesn't it. The way it is being done creates more controversy and animosity, but that was the intent all along. The latter method keeps everyone happy, so no sense in doing that.

This post is not directed toward either of you. I just wanted to attempt an explanation.

OHHH, I remember that one. I prob did +1 that and would again. The one in question is quite angry.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

OHHH, I remember that one. I prob did +1 that and would again. The one in question is quite angry.

I know I did and I think you did too and I'm not ashamed to admit it. The OP was being polite and not naming names. Yes, there is one who is quite angry, or at least that's their VJ persona.

[Krikit 1,163]

I'm pretty sure you guys have missed the point.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just missed the point? How about all the underhand digs at some 'unnamed' VJ participant who brings negativity wherever they go? I am guessing at least Spooky is referring to me as I have been told by him that I ruin every thread I post in. Is that the sort of 'non snarky' posting that spooks and his cohorts approve of? I say, nice, going boys.

Edited May 30, 2014 by The Truth™

[luckytxn 2,264]

Want some cheese with that whine?

Just missed the point? How about all the underhand digs at some 'unnamed' VJ participant who brings negativity wherever they go? I am guessing at least Spooky is referring to me as I have been told by him that I ruin every thread I post in. Is that the sort of 'non snarky' posting that spooks and his cohorts approve of? I say, nice, going boys.

[Peikko 1,575]

Want some cheese with that whine?

Whine? Really? Because you do not like me or the things I post, you think that gives you the right to decide if I am angry and if I ruin the forum? That's pathetic.

[luckytxn 2,264]

You have a serious lack of comprehension...as usual.

Rest my case from my earlier argument.

Whine? Really? Because you do not like me or the things I post, you think that gives you the right to decide if I am angry and if I ruin the forum? That's pathetic.

Edited May 30, 2014 by luckytxn

[Peikko 1,575]

You have a serious lack of comprehension...as usual.

Rest my case from my earlier argument.

You do not get to decide who can and can't post on VJ, and based on your inability to see things in perspective, it's a good job you are not a moderator. I am not an angry person, I just don't indulge in flirting and stupid giggly posts. That's my prerogative, you don't have to like it, you don't have to respect it, but you do have to refrain from suggesting that there are people who shouldn't be allowed to post in OT because you think they are too pc, too thin skinned and too angry. It's not up to you, or your buddies.

Edited May 30, 2014 by The Truth™